On Thu 05/Sep/2019 15:35:29 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: >>> If we didn't care about privacy, this would be easy. That's the hard >>> part that does not have a clear solution. One thing that is clear is >>> that it's not the PSL. PSL is a collector of assertions from operators, >>> so it fails to meet the attributes laid out in A.1.>> >> Failure reports are considerably less implemented than aggregate ones. >> The current spec doesn't mention any privacy risk in its Security >> Considerations section. However, some concern must exist, otherwise the >> difference in implementations cannot be easily explained. The I-D at hand >> touches on this point marginally. A general consideration would better >> fit in DMARCbis.> > That's because there's an entire separate section on privacy considerations.
My bad English. By "current spec" I meant rfc7489. Best Ale -- _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
